
Class _ 



( 



SPEEOH 



//6 



Hox\. JOHN SHERMAN, OF OHIO, 



J 



AS A COMPENSATION FOR MILITARY SERVICE RENDERED 

BY SLAVES. 



DEI^IVERED liV THE SENATE OP THE UR'STEO STATES, 



FEBRUARY 2, 1864. 



WASHINGTON, D. C: 

McQtLL& -WITnEROW, PRINTERS AND STERE0TYPER3, 

1864, 



u.^ 7- 






SPEECH 



The Senate, as in Commitlee of the Whole, having under 
consideration the bill (S. No. 41) to promote enlistments in 
the Army of the United States, and for other purposes — 

Mr. SHERMAN said : 

Mr. President, the bill now before the Sen- 
ate presents not only the question of the em- 
ployment of negroes in the militai'y service of 
the United States, but also the question of the 
emancipation of the whole negro race in this 
country. The second section of the bill pro- 
vides that all persons of African descent who 
have been or may hereafter be employed in the 
military or naval service shall receive the same 
uniform, pay, arms, and equipments as other 
soldiers of the regular or volunteer forces of the 
United States other than bounty. The third 
Eection provides that " when any person of Afri- 
can descent, whose service or labor is claimed 
in any State under the laws thereof, shall be 
mustered into the military or naval service of 
the United States, he, his mother, his wife, and 
children, shall forever thereafter be free." It 
is manifest that if a slave is employed in the 
military service, the inevitable result of that 
employment is emancipation. It would appear 
to be just, when a slave renders military service 
and exposes his life in a civil war like this, that 
it should inure to the benefit of his wife, his 
mother, and his children. It is equally clear 
that if by the laws of war all slaves who enter 
into the military service in the southern States, 
and all who are connected with them by the ties 
of blood, shall be emancipated, the tenure of 
slavery in this country would become so uncer- 
tain as to result in universal emancipation. I 
will, therefore, treat this proposition according 
to its logical effect, and as involving the eman- 
cipation of the negro race in this country. 

EPJECT OF MILITAHY SERVICE BY A SLAVE. 

Has Congress or the President power to em- 
ploy slaves in the military service ? Can we 
emancipate them, either as a punishment of 



rebels or as a reward for military service? if 
these powers exist, to what extent and iu what 
way should we exercise them? These ques*- 
tions present the most difficult problem of the 
war, which requires in its solution more thau 
human wisdom. I certainly would not engage 
in the discussion did not the responsibility of 
my position require me to meet them as practi- 
cal questions of legislation. For many years 
this Senate Chamber has rung with angry dis- 
cussions on the slavery question. The most 
eloquent, the most gifted, the wise, the learned, 
each and all of the great names that have 
adorned American history in Convention and in 
either House of Congress, have expended their 
eloquence, their learning, all the artillery of 
excited debate on the slavery question as it af- 
fected a single slave or an unpopulated Terri- 
tory. It devolves upon us now to pass upon » 
guarantee, a pledge, which if made, honor and 
public faith will never hereafter allow the na- 
tion to withdraw; and which, if redeemed, will 
directly emancipate a majority of the slaves ia 
this country, and in its logical consequence 
within a short time will make every human 
being within our limits free, unless he forfeits 
his freedom by his crime. In the discussion of 
such a question it becomes vital that we care- 
fully examine our powers. The race whose 
military service we require has yielded forced 
labor, unrequited toil, to ours for generations. 
If we induce them to incur the risk of death and 
wounds in war upon the promise of emancipa- 
tion, and do not redeem that promise, v.'e add 
perfidy to wrong. The soldier who has worn 
our uniform and served under our flag must not 
hereafter labor as a slave. Nor would it be t-ol- 
erable that his wife, his mother, or his child 
should be the property of another. The in- 
stinctive feeling of every man of generous im- 
pulse would revolt at such a spectacle. The 
guarantee of freedom for himself, his mother, 
his wife, and his child is the inevitable incident 



of the employment of a slave as a soldier. If 
you have not the power, or do not mean to 
emancipate liimand those with whom he is con- 
nected by domestic ties, then in the name of 
Cod and humanity do not employ him as a sol- 
dier. Let him in his servitude at least be free 
from the danger incident to a free man. If I 
bad doubts about the power to emancipate the 
slave for military service, I certainly would not 
vote to employ him as a soldier. 

And so vast a subject as this deserves the dig- 
nity of a separate bill. The Military Commit- 
tee hare unwisely incumbered this bill with 
provisions about adjutants, quartermasters, and 
other minor details of legislation. The guaran- 
tee of freedom has annexed to it no provision 
to secure it. No details are given. . We know 
that the relation of husband and wife is not re- 
cognized with slaves, and yet this relation is 
spoken of as a measure of emancipation. Who 
is the wife of a slave ? If reference is had to 
local law it declares that a slave can have no 
wife, and if you mean to make this guarantee 
effective you must define who shall be consid- 
ered the wife of the slave. It is one of the worst 
features of the system of slavery that a man 
who will render you military service under this 
bill is not recognized by the law as the father 
of children ; but the children follow the condi- 
tion of their mother. Who will be held to be 
the children of the slaves who may tight and 
die in your service? This bill does not define 
them. A great act of emaneipation like this, 
intended to have effects upon future genera- 
lions, certainly should have more ample pro- 
visions to secure its execution, and should be 
clothed in such language as to show that we 
appreciate the dignity and importance of such 
legislation. The principal difference between 
this bill and the law as it stands is that this 
bill includes the slaves and their relatives of 
loyal masters in adJiering States, and yet con- 
tains no provision for their compensation. 

In the view I shall take of this matter, it is 
indispensable that in adhering States where 
slaves of loyal citizens are taken for the public 
services, provision must be made for their com- 
I>eusation. Heretofore in practice, the Secre- 
tary of War has appropriated the bounty paid 
in for sabstitutes to the purchase of negro 
slaves ; but this has been done in the absence 
of legislation from the necessity of the case. 
Surely in treating so vast a subject we ought to 
make the laws simple, plain, eft'ective, and com- 
plete, that executive legislation should not be 
required. 

president's proclamation. 

Nov^-, ought we to leave the question of the 
emancipation of slaves who serve in our armies 
to rest solely on the President's proclamation. 
Some of the ablest lawj'ers in this county have 
declared that the President has no power to 
proclaim the emancipation of the slaves. This 
power has not been settled by any court or tri- 
bunal, and has been denied not only by politi- 
cal parties, but by able lawyers who are friends 
of the administration. It is difficult to per- 



ceive in the Constitution of the United States 
where he derives this power. In his recent 
message he casts doubts upon the subject, and 
invites interference by the courts. This proc- 
lamation was never sanctioned by Congress, and 
can only have effect so far as it is executed. It 
cannot have effect upon slaves who are brought 
within its operation during actual hostilities. 
The exceptions contained in this proclamation 
make it partial and ineffective. If executed in 
the seceding States it impairs the value of slaves 
in loyal States, and yet leaves slavery an ex- 
isting institution. 

If the negroes of the southern States, who 
are now gathering about our banners, fight for 
us nobly and well, and prove by their cour- 
age that they are capable of being freemen, 
they should be free. They are now on trial. 
My sympathies are not necessarily with the ne- 
gro race ; but if the negro now shows by his 
courage, by his capacity, by his endurance, by 
his bravery, that he is able to win his freedom 
and maintain it, then I wish to secure him that 
freedom by all the sanctions of law, and not to 
rest it upon the uncertain tenure of a Presi- 
dent's proclamation. We are here independent 
of the President ; it is our duty to examine 
critically the question of his powers and effect 
of his acts. 

And, sir, we must not foro-et that the Presi- 
dent who issued this proclamatifin may abro- 
gate it ; he may modify it, or extend the ex- 
ceptions by a new amnesty. We know that he 
entered upon this path of emancipation only 
after the country became wearied and almost 
exhausted under the unnatural protection ex- 
tended by his officers to slavery. We know that 
when General Fremont, early in the war, re- 
fused to surrender slaves to their rebel mg,ster3 
and by proelamotiou emancipated slaves who 
came within his lines, the President set aside 
his proclamation and extended his confidence 
only to those who protected the property, even 
of open public enemies, in their slaves. When 
General Hunter issued his proclamation in South 
Carolina, where if any where, such a procla- 
mation could be justified, in the presence of the 
enemy, in the nest of secession, in the sight of 
the worst rebels of the country, the President 
set aside that proclamation. When we were 
legislating liere in anxious deliberation, and 
finally conclmled that it was our duty to eman- 
cipate the slaves of the leading rebels in the 
southern State.'/ifhose who held high offices, and 
not only to emancipate their slaves but to con- 
fiscate their land and other property, our legis- 
lation was suspended, and we were compelled 
to change it and modify it at the desire of the 
President, and in that way to destroy the vital- 
ity of our legislation. We must also remember 
that within one month before the first procla- 
mation of emancipation was issued the Presi- 
dent ridiculed his power to emancipate slaves, 
and a common remark was attributed to him 
that such a proclamation on his part would 
amount to nothing more than the Pope's bull , 
against the comet. 



,5 



So far was this conservatism carried — for I 
•will call it by the name its friends chose for it — 
that the political partj- to which the Presiilent 
belongs lost every election that fall. Ohio is 
now represented in the other House of Con- 
gress by thirteen gentlemen who certainly do 
not represent the opinion of the majority of her 
people, and who owe their seats entirely to the 
discouragement caused by tlie mode in which 
the war was then conducted. The whole of 
this state of feeling grew out of the backward- 
ness of the President in meeting this question 
of emancipation and employment of negroes 
in this war. We must also remember that the 
exceptions contained in the President's procla- 
mation very much impair the value of the proc- 
lamation, even if jt should be sustained by the 
courts. It has never yet been attested in a sin- 
gle tribunal; no judge has ever yet pronounced 
in favor of his validity. Men have doubts 
about it. Under these circumstances, can you 
expect -the negroes of the southern States who 
are informed upon the subject to rally around 
your banner ; or if, as I know thej' are, they 
are ignorant and take your promise for your 
power, I ask you whether you are willing to let 
them risk their lives upon- the basis of a proc- 
lamation on the validity of which you yourselves 
have doubts, especially if you have the power 
by law to sanction that proclamation and to 
give it validity. 

We must remember that the President is but 
one branch of the Government. His powers 
are defined by the Constitution. They are sim- 
ply executive. He can neither make nor sus- 
pend the operation of a law. In time of war 
he is Commander-in-Chief of our Army and 
Navy ; but is this power sufficient to change 
the laws of States and communities, does it ex- 
tend beyond the lines of our armies, or into the 
future peaceful times which we hope may soon 
come upon us ? I shall hereafter endeavor to 
show that Congress is invested with clear power 
to guaranty emancipation to slaves who enter our 
armies ; but vk'here can such a power be found 
for the President ? Even if, in the opinion of 
Senators, the proclamation is effective, if it has 
the power and etficiency of law, it is our duty 
to give to that proclamation the sanction of the 
legislative authority. If you have the power 
to arm slaves, and if they fight for you, you 
must make them free, and if you guaranty 
their freedom you must adhere to that guarantee 
to the bitter end. The idea of getting these 
poor ignorant Africans into our service, call- 
ing upon them to risk their lives for us, to be 
slaughtered in our civil war, and then not se- 
curing them emancipation, would be the hight 
of injustice. I would never authorize a single 
slave to be employed in this civil war unless I 
had the power to emancipate him. If you put 
him in your ranks, and make him fight for you, 
and then do not give him liberty, you treat him 
worse than the meanest slaveholder that ever 
lived. The .slave owners only rob him of his 
wages ; they only take from him the sweat of 
bis brow ; but if you take his life and then do 



not' secure to him and to his children their free- 
dom, you do him a still greater wrong. 

POAVEU OF CONGRESS — WHENCE DERIVED, 

Have we this power, and if so whence is it 
derived and to what extent can we execute it? 
The power to emancipate a slave by Congress 
or the President certainly does not exist in time 
of peace. This is an axiom in American poli- 
tics. The second Congress, upon the petition 
of Benjamin Franklin, declared that the national 
Legislature had no power over slavery in the 
States. The declaration has been repeated by 
almost every Congress since that time, ^o 
political party that has ever been organized in 
this country has claimed the power of interfer- 
ing with slavery in the States. At the very- 
last session of Congress before this war broke 
out the House of Representatives, by a unani- 
mous vote, declared that Congress had no power 
to emancipate slaves, and no power over the 
subject of slavery in the States. It was so de- 
clared by the President ; it was so declared in 
the Chicago platform ; it is, as I have said, an 
axiom in American politics that Congress has 
no power over slavery in the slaveholding 
States, that slavery is simply a local institution 
protected by local law, having existence com- 
mensurate only with that local law, that Con- 
gress has no power whatever over it except as 
the power grows out of the enforcement of the 
provision of the Constitution of the United 
States for the capture of fugitive slaves. This, 
I believe, is admitted on all hands. If, there- 
fore, we have power to emancipate, we must 
derive it from some other source, and not from 
the ordinary' powers of Congress in time of 
peace. 

It is equally clear that the existence of a mere 
insurrection in our country will not justify in- 
terference with slavery. This has been settled 
now by many cases in our courts. I have lis- 
tened very often to the arguments made by the 
Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Davis] on this 
point, but the dilficulty with him — and I sub- 
mit it to his judgment, for I intend to appeal to 
his candor to-day — is that he does not distin- 
guish between insuiTection and war. The line 
is broad and deep. We have had some insur- 
rections in this country, but we have never 
before had a civil war. There was an insurrec- 
tion in ]\Iassachusetts, Shay's rebellion, before 
the formation of the Constitution, growing out 
of the depressed condition of industry. That 
was simply an insurrection, a rising of ignorant 
men against the authorities of the State of 
Massachusetts. It was put down partially by 
judicial proceedings and partly by mild force. 
Then we had an insurrection in western Penn- 
sylvania, called the Avhiskey insurrection. A 
large body of armed men were called out, but it 
was finally put down rather by marshals and 
constables than by military force. 

My friend from Kentucky says they had one 
in Massachusetts in the Burns case ; and he has 
arraigned the Senator from Massachusetts for 
some complicity in that matter. The Burns case 
was a mere mob, a mutiny, if you please, but 



suppose it was an insurrection, what then ? In- 
surrection is not war, as I sltall show by the 
authorities ; very far from it. We had an in- 
surrection, or w-hat I may call an insurrection, 
jn Kansas when the peoi^le of Missouri invaded 
the Territory of Kansas. Armed men marched 
over from that State into an infant Territory, 
seizing upon their ballot-box, and controlling 
the operations of their government. That was 
an insurrection, and none the less an insurrec- 
tion because the executive authorities of the 
country sustained and sanctioned it, to their dis- 
honor. It was an insurrection against the 
laws, but it was not war ; very far from it. We 
had a kind of insurrection, an ejiteute, in Utah ; 
■ but it never rose to the dignity of war. It was 
simply a dissatisfaction on the part of the people 
there with the acts of certain executive authori- 
tic'j, and resistance to those acts ; but the re- 
.■^ibtauce disappeared on the approach of a 
military force. It was at most insurrection. 
To show that this distinction is laid down in 
the law-books, I will refer to Mr. Lawrence's 
recent edition of Wheaton's International Law. 
In a note on page 522 it is said : 

•• Publicists (listinguiah between popular commotion 
[emotion puindairc) or turanltuoiis asseniblago, which may 
be dirccjed agaiiist the magistrates or merely agaiust indi- 
viduals ; sedition, (sedition,) applying to a formal disobedi- 
ence pai'ticularly diivctcd against the magistrates or other 
depositaries of public authority ; and insurrection, {souleve- 
meni,) which extends to great numbers in a city or province, 
so that even the sovereign is no longer obeyed ; and civil 
v>ar. 

" A civil war is when a party arises in a State which no 
longer obeys the sovereign and is sufficiently strong to 
raakc head against him, or whnn, in a republic, the nation 
is divided into two opposite factions, and both sides take up 
arms. The common laws of war are in civil wars to be ob- 
served on both sides. 

DISTIKCTION BETWEEN INSURRECTION AND WAR. 

It will be necessary for Senators to keep in 
view these distinctions, because upon them rests 
the whole argument in this case. Civil war is 
where an insurrection has assumed such power 
and strength as to invoke armies, when victories 
and defeats alternate, when the matter ceases 
to be a mere insurrection or a rising against the 
civil authority, and when marshals and con- 
stables are no longer necessary, bvit armies must 
be called tipon to decide the conflict. The law 
of 17&5 defines what an insurrection is. In such 
cases, the President must call out the militia 
of the ^tate, through its Governor, the riot act 
must be read, and various precautions are pre- 
scribed. But Avhen the insurrection assumes 
the magnitude of civil' war, other laws must 
govern ; the law of 1795 ceases to apply; and' 
THE LAWS OF WAR as rccognized among the 
civilized and Christian nations of the world 
must then decide the contest. 

It is sometimes diificult to ascertain when an 
insurrection melts into rebellion, or when a re- 
bellion assumes the proportions of civil war : but 
ijxthe present case, the character of the struggle 
in which we are engaged has been definitively 
settled by every department of the Government. 
The Suju'tme Court of the United States has 
already declared that this is no longer an in- 
surrection, but 'a civil war. Every depart- 



ment of the Government concurs that this is a 
civil war and not an insurrection. When the 
President of the United States originally called 
out seventy-five thousand volunteers he treated 
it partly as an insurrection and partly as a 
civil war — a kind of incongruous condition not 
easily understood ; but Congress, as soon as it 
convened, treated it as a civil war, authorized 
the employment of half a million men, and 
called it war. The President issued a procla- 
mation declaring a blockade, a thing not known 
as against insurgents. Finally the decision of 
the Supreme Court in the prize cases during the 
December term, 1862, declared that it was civil 
war and not insurrection. I will read a short 
extract from that decision ; and I shall have 
occasion to refer to it frequently : 

" This greatest of civil wars was not gradually developed 
by popular commotion, tumultuous assemblies, or local un- 
organized insurrections. Ho\?ever long may have been it3 
previous conception, it nevertheless sprang I'orth suddenly 
from the parent brain, a Minerva in the full panoply of war. 
The President was bound to meet it in the shape it pre- 
sented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptise it with 
a name ; and no name given to it by him or them could 
change the fact. 

" It is not the lesa a civil war, with belligerent p,-\rties ia 
ho.'tile array, because it may be called an 'insurrection' by 
one side, and the insurgents be considered as rebels or trai- 
tors." — 2 Black's Reports, p. 669. 

The decision rests upon that basis, treats 
these rebels, as we commonly call them, these 
enemies, as enemies in war, open war, to be put 
down according to the laws of war. That point 
was, however, previously settled hf another 
tribunal. We are one of the family of nations. 
Great Britain, with a hasty indecency, before 
the facts were known, when our minister was 
on his way to take his place at that court — a 
minister whose very name should have com- 
manded the respect of Great Britain — recog- 
nized the insurgents as belligerents; and France 
followed her example. By that fact we are 
bound, as one of the family of nations ; and 
after that acknowledgment by Great Britain 
and France we dared not treat the rebels as 
simple insurgents, but we were bound to wage 
the war against them according to the laws of 
war. Each nation must decide this question of 
belligerent for itself. Great Britain did decide 
it; France decided it ; and we have concurred 
in that decision. Every department of this 
Government has held the insurgents to be bel- 
ligerents, entitled to the benefits of the laws of 
war, and the war must be waged against them 
according to the laws of civilized nations. 

I have heard in this Senate Chamber very 

often the ridiculous idea that these people are 

our erring brethren, insurgents, whom it is our 

duty to conciliate with kindness. That is no 

longer their condition. They are enemies, and 

we are bound to treat them as enemies. We 

are bound to wage war against them according 

to the laws of war. We dare not treat them as 

j insurgents. If Jetferson Davis should be cap- 

i tared to-morrow he would be a prisoner of war, 

I and we dare not, according to the laws of war, 

until we put down all opposing force, hang him 

as a traitor. That princii)le was decided early 

in this war in the case of General Buckner. 



Buckner was not only a traitor to his country, 
the United States at large, but be was a traitor 
to Kentucky. He had inveigled the young men 
of that State into an organization, and finally 
led them off into the armies of the rebels. The 
authorities of Kentucky demanded him for trial, 
but the national authorities very properly said 
that he \vas no longer an insurgent, and could 
not be treated by'thcm according to the laws 
of Kentucky, but he must be treated as an ene- 
my, a prisoner of war, according to the laws of 
war, to be exchanged in due time ; and he was 
exchanged. 

"We can no longer, then, consider these men 
as insurgents; and Senators who talk about 
them as erring brethren who must be coaxed 
or brought back to their old place in the Union 
by anything but force of arms, misunderstand 
the legal relation that exists between us and 
these enemies. They are nc longer erring 
brethren. We, as members of a common com- 
munity, owe that community obedience, alle- 
giance, love, and affection, and we are bound as 
citizens to treat- the open enemies of our coun- 
try as our personal enemies. 

The Constitution of tlie United States now 
furnishes no guide. There are no rules pre- 
scribed in the Constitution pointing out how 
we shall treat public enemies. The Constitu- 
tion only deals with people in a state of peace, 
or, at most, in a state of insurrection. It does 
not define our relations or our duties to ene- 
mies. When these people assumed the power 
and position of enemies, you could no longer 
look to the Constitution of the United States, or 
to the laws made in pursuance thereof, for the 
mode and manner in which you should treat 
them. This principle is clearly laid down in 
the laws of nations. By their unity, bj' their 
vigor, by their strength, they have won the po- 
sition of enemies, and you cannot treat them as 
insurgents. Civilized society would not allow 
you to treat enemies, who by their vigor and 
courage have held you at bay for nearly three 
years, as common insurgents or traitors and 
felons. You must treat them as enemies. The 
legal consequences that grow out of this rela- 
tion I shall follow up hereafter. 

This doctrine is laid down not only in Vattel 
but in Wheaton's International law, a work of 
more modern date ; but I will not read the quo- 
tation. It is also laid down by the Supreme 
Court in the decision to which I have al- 
ready referred. The counsel for the defend- 
ants insisted that these people in the South 
were simply insurgents, and that, therefore, the 
blockade, which was the matter in controversy, 
was not legal. The Supreme Court, after re- 
peating the argument of the counsel, go on to 
say : 

"This argument r•;^^ts on the assnmption of two proposi- 
tions, each of which is without foundation on the estab- 
lished law of nations. It assumes that where a civil war 
exists, the party belligerent claiming to be sovereign can- 
not, for some unknown reasoa, exercise the rights of bel- 
ligerents, although the revolutionary party may. Being 
sovereign, he caa e.xercise only sovereign right? over the 
other party." 



This is an argument I have heard adduced 
over and over again, in the Senate : 

"The insurgent may he killoii on the battle-field, or by 
the executioner; his property on land may he confiscated 
under the municipal law ; but the commerce on the ocean, 
which supplies the rebels with means to support the war, 
cannot be made the subject of capture under the laws of 
war, because it is ^unconsliluiiiyiial .' Now, it is a proposi- 
tion never doubteil that the belligerent party who claims 
to be sovereign may exercise both belligerent and sovereign 
rights. (See 4 Cr., 27-.) We hava shown that a civil war 
siichfas that now waged between the Northern and t^outhcrn 
States is properly conducted according to the humane regu- 
lations of public law as regards captures on the ocean.'' 

The doctrine is here laid down distinctly 
that an insurgent may be killed on the battle- 
field or by the executioner, that his property 
on land may be confiscated under the munici- 
pal law, and his property on the ocean may be 
seized and taken as that of a public enemy. 
The particular case was one of seizure on the 
ocean, and the seizure was held to be legal, and 
the property was divided among the captors 
according to our law for the distribution of 
captures taken from the public enemies. 

OUR RIGHT TO EMANCIPATE. 

Now, Mr. President, let us apply these prin- . 
ciples to the bill before us. We are in war. 
Have we the right in war as against public P 
enemies to emancipate their slaves ? Have we 
a right according to the laws of war to employ 
the slaves of our own citizens in arms against 
the public enemy ? Have we a right in accord- 
ance with the laws of war to emancipate them 
and their families, those that are connected "^ 
with them by domestic ties? These are the 
questions. I have already passed over the 
principal difficulty in the way, and that is the 
argument so often made that we are restrained 
from doing this because these enemies are our 
fellow-citizens. I have shown you that the 
men in rebellion have won a position beyond 
the reach of your Constitution ; that our war 
with them must be tested by the laws of war ; 
and these questions must be decided by the 
laws of war as recognized and practiced among 
civilized nations in ancient and modern times. 
That is the position which I hold. 

Then, by the laws of war, have we a right 
to arm our own slaves, and to arm the slaves 
of our enemies and emancipate then? Now, 
sir, I say that there never was a country in the 
world, in ancient or modern times, which held 
slaves, that did not at some period of its his- 
tory arm them, and employ them against the 
common enemy ; and there never was a case 
where, when those slaves were so employed, 
they were not emancipated. Tliis proposition, 
I think, will be sustained by the most careful 
examination of history. Slaves fought for the 
Greeks on the battle-field of Marathon; and to 
the credit of the Athenians they were emanci- 
pated for their services. The Spartans marched 
with their Helots into the battle-field. The 
Thessalian mounted Penestaj were bond-ser- 
vants. There were many slaves on board of 
the Athenian fleet at the successful naval en- 
gagement before the island Arginuste, and as' 
the honor of the victory belonged to them, it id 



8 



to the credit of the Athenians that they eman- 
cipated tliem and invested them with all the 
rights of Platffian citizenship, The Helots 
attended the Spartans as light-armed troops, 
a&d on the battle-field of Platte there were 
thirty-five thousand Helots to five thousand 
Spartans. The warlike habiis of the Thessa- 
hans imposed upon their slaves the duty of 
following them to the army. During the Pelo- 
ponnesian war a single citizen of Thessaly put 
twelve thousand of them at the disposal of 
Athens. And when Jason of Vhevm strove to 
gain the ascendant over Greece, he counted 
upon the slaves to equip the vessels with which 
he disputed the empire of the seas with the 
Athenians. 

The right of emancipation denied to individ- 
uals was ezercised by the State. The supreme 
authority and traces of its exercise pervade the 
entire iiistory of Sparta. Seven hundred He- 
lots were raised to the rank of Hoplites and 
piaced under Brasidas as general, who employed 
tli^rj to aid in the conquest of the cities of 
^_nrace. Three or four hundred Athenians 
were, a little later, sent to the succor of Syra- 
cuse, and when Epaminondas threatened the 
, Spartans at their own hearthstones, they 
brought out as auxilaries a thousand recently 
emancipated Helots. According to Xenophon, 
liberty was offered to all those who volunteered 
to defend the republic, and in an instant more 
than six thousand were enrolled. During the 
protracted and often renewed wars between the 
Spartans and the Athenians, slaves were much 
employed as help to one belligerent or hinder- 
ance to another. Thus we learn from Xeno- 
phon that when the Spartan general Callicatri- 
das had captured the town of Methymna, in 
Lesbos, the whole of the property tliere was 
plundered by the soldiers, but all the slaves 
Callicatridas collected into the mai'ket-place, 
and when his allies urged him to sell the Me- 
thymneans also, he said that Avhile he was 
commander none of the Greeks should be en- 
slaved so far as he could prevent it. The next 
day he set at liberty the freemen and the Athen- 
ian garrison, and sold all the slaves that were 
of servile origin. 

I know that many denominated slaves among 
the Greeks were not strictly slaves, according 
to our meaning of that term, but they were 
servitors. I cannot stop to define the various 
kinds of servitude known to Greece in ancient 
times, but it appears that all the grades of 
slaves or servitors fought for or against their 
masters, and in all cases won their free- 
dom by so doing. I shall not stop now to dis- 
cuss the difference between the slayes of Greece 
and our own slaves, because I shall be able to 
quote more pertinent examples. My purpose 
is only to show that among the Greeks in all 
their tvars, civil and foreign, on land and at 
sea, slaves were employed as soldiers, and were 
always emancipated as the result of their em- 
ployment. 

The Romans did the samefrom the very foun- 
dation of their Government. In the palmiest 



days of the Roman republic they employed 
their slaves as soldiers. There are many cases 
which I ;,might adduce ; but there is one to 
which I will take the liberty of referring par- 
ticularly. In fone of the wars between the 
Romans and the Cartbagenians, and which was 
a desperate war for life or death, things as- 
sumed that position after the battle of Canna; 
that the Romans had either to submit to the 
Carthagenians or the Carthagenians to the 
Romans. There was no longer room enough in 
this little world of ours for these two rival 
nations, very much the same condition in which 
we are now placed. Livy tells us : 

" The urgent necessity and the scarcity of men of froi' 
condition occasioned their adopting a new mode of raising 
soldiers, and in an extraordinary manner. They purchased 
with the public money eight thousand stout young slaves, 
asking each whether he was willing to serve in tiie wars, 
and then gave them arms," 

And they did serve, and were emancipated. 
In the same war, at a later period, under Ti- 
berius Sempronius : 

" In the mean time Tiberius Sempronius, the Rtmian con- 
sul, after performiug the purification of his army at Sinu- 
essa, where he had appointed them to assemble, crossed 
the river Vulturnus and encamped at Literuum. As he had 
itt this post no employment for his arms, he obliged the 
soldiers frequently to go through their exercise, that the 
recruits, ot whom the greatest part were volunteer slaves, 
might learn from practice to follow the standards and to 
know their own centuries in the field. In the midst of 
these employments the general's principal care was, and 
he accordingly gare charges to the lieutenants general and 
tribunes, that 'no reproach cast on any one on account of 
his former condition should sow discord among the troops; 
that the veteran soldier should be satisfied at being put on 
a level with the recruit, the free man with the volunteer 
slave ; that they should account every one sufficiently hon- 
orable and well-born to whom the Roman people intrusted 
their arms and standards, observing that, whatever meas- 
ures fortune made it necessary to adopt, it was equally 
necessary to support these when adopted.' " 

I think this is very wise and pregnant advice 
even to the people of otir own time. Still an- 
other case, to show how these soldiers fought 
in battle when the idea of liberty was held out 
to them. In the same war, under Quintius 
Fabius : 

" The legions which he had with him consisted mostly of 
volunteer slaves, who had chosen rather to merit their 
liberty in silence, by the service of a second year, than to 
request it openly. Ho had observed, however, as he was 
leaving his winter quarters, that the iroops on their march 
began to murmur, asking whether ' they were ever to serve 
as free citizens?' He had, however, written to the Senate, 
insisting not so much oq their wishes as on their merits, 
declaring that 'he had ever found them faithful and brave 
in the service, and that, excepting a free condition, they 
wanted no qualificdtion of complete soldiers.' Authority 
was given him to act in that business as he himself should 
judge conducive to the good of the public. Before he re- 
solved upon coming to an engagement, therefore, he gave 
public notice that the time was ' now come wlien they 
might obtain the liberty which they had so long wished 
for ; that he intended next day to engage the enemy in 
regular battle, in a clear, open plain, where, without any 
fi:ar of stratagems, the business might be decided by the 
mere dint of valor. Every man, then, who should bring 
home the head of an enemy he would instantly, by his own 
authority, set free ; and every one who should retreat from 
his post he would punish iu the same manner as a slave.' 

"The soldiers, exulting with joy, especially those who 
were to receive liberty as the price of their active efforts 
for one day, spent the rest of their time until night in get- 
ting their arms iu readiue.ss. " 

I intend to follow out this occasion, and show 
the effect of the promise of emancipation on 



those slaves, who were blacks, as will appear in 
the course of the narrative ; 

" Next day, as soon as the trumpets liegan to sound to 
battle, the above-mentioned men, the tirst of all, assembled 
round the general's quarters, ready and marshaled for the 
flght. At sunrise Gracchus led out his troops to the field, 
Dor did the enemy hesitate to meet him. Their force con- 
sisted of seventeen thousand foot, mostly Bruttiansand Lu- 
cauians, and twelve thousand horse, among whom were 
Tory few Italians. Almost all the rest were i^umidians 
and Moors.'" 

If there is any distinction on account of color, 
we here have the case of Numidians and Moors 
fighting for their liberty. 

A SEyATOR. They were not negroes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The distinction between 
thein and negroes I leave to others whose sight 
is very reSned. 

" The conflict was fierce and long ; during hours neither 
.side gained the advantage, and no circumstance proved a 
greater impediment to the success of the Romans than from 
the heads of the enemy being made the price of liberty ; 
for when any had valiantly siain an opponent he lost time, 
first in cutting off the head, winch could not be readily 
effected ra the midst of the crowd and tumult, and then his 
right hand being employed in securing it, th« bravest 
ceased to take part in the fight, and the contest devolved 
on the inactive and dastardly. The military tribunes now 
represented to Gracchus that the soldiers were not em- 
ployed in wounding any of the enemy who stood on their 
legs, but in maiming those who had faUen, and instead of 
their own swords in their hands they carried the heads of 
the slain. On which he commanded tJiem to give orders 
with all haste that ' thoy should throw away the heads and 
attack the enemy ; that their courage was sufficiently evi- 
dent and conspicuous,, and that such bravo men need not 
■doubt of liberty,' The fight v/as then revived, and the 
cavalry also were ordered to charge ; these were hriskly 
encountered by the Numidians, and the battle of the horse 
was maintained with no less vigor than that of the foot, so 
that the event of the day again became doubtful, while the 
■commanders on both sides vilSified their adversaries in the 
most contemptuous terms, the Roman speakirg to his sol- 
diers of the lAicanians and Bruttians as men so often de- 
feated and subdued by their ancestors, and the Carthage- 
nians of the Romans as slaves, soldiers taken out of the 
workhouse. At last Gracchus proclaimed that his men 
had no room to hope for liberty unless the enemy were 
routed that day and driven ofi" the field. 

" These words so eflectually inflamed their courage that, 
as if they had been suddenly transformed into other men, 
they renewed the shout and bore down on the enemy with 
an impetuosity which it was impossible long to -withstand. 
.First the 'Carthagenian vanguard, then the battalions were 
thrown into confusion ; at last the whole Jine was forced 
to give way ; they then plaiuly turned their backs and fled 
precipitately into their camps, in such terror and dismay 
that none of them made a stand, even at the gates or on 
the rampart." — Baker''s Livy\Rome, vol.3. 

The Romans gained a complete victory, and 
Tiberius Gracchus, in an imposing spectacle, 
which is here described at great length, gave 
them their freedom. There are many cases of this 
kind in Roman history. It is full of examples 
where slav^es fought for their freedom. Cato 
used them at the defense of Utica, and required 
their masters to emancipate them. Plutarch is 
full of examples of the kind. Tacitus, in the 
later periods of Roman history, recites many 
familiar examples. In the republic, in the em- 
pire, in their civil wars, in their foreign wars, 
slaves were used, and in every case they were 
emancipated. The distinction in the character 
of the slaves, whether white or black, was 
never made. The Romans held different de- 
grees of slaves, and of various nations. Some 
of the Germans, many of the Asiatic nations, 
and many of the African tribes were held as 



slaves. There was no distinction ever made 
between them on account of their color, '^"heir 
condition, not their color, fixed their slavery. 

HISTORICAL EXAMPLE.S. 

But, sir, this employment of slaves in the mil- 
itary service was not coufine^LO ancient times. 
At the present day they arc used by many na- 
tions. On a reccuu occasion, in the Spanish 
colony of Cuba, with a jiopulation of one half 
slaves, a militia of free blacks and mulattoeB 
was directed by General I'ezuela to be organ- 
iEed in 1854 throughout the island, and it was 
put upon an equal footing with regard to priv- 
ilege with the regular army. This measure 
was not rescinded by Governor General Concha 
in 1855, but the black and mulatto troops have 
been made a permanent corjis of the Spanish 
army in this slaveholding island. So with the 
Portuguese. Slaves have been used by the Por- 
tuguese in their wars ; and now in the Portu- 
guese colonies on the coast of Africa the regi- 
ments are composed chiefly of black men. So 
at Prince's Island, St. Thomas, Loando, and 
many other places where they hold colonies, 
their soldiers are negroes. In the Dutch colony 
on the gold coast of Africa, with a population 
of one hundred thousand, the garrison of the 
fortress consists of two hundred soldiers, whites, 
mulattoes, and blacks, under a Dutch colonel, 
la the capital of the French colony in the Sene- 
gal, on the same coast, at St. Louis, the de- 
fense of the place is in the hands of eight hun- 
dred white and three hundred black soldiers. 
In the Danish island of St. Croix, in the West 
Indies, for more than twenty-five years past, 
there have been emj^loyed two corps of colored 
soldiers in the presence of slaves. So in Brazil, 
so in Turkey. Our English friends, who were 
so eager to recognize the belligerent powers of 
the confederacy, also employ manumitted slaves. 
The British army stationed in the West Indies 
consists of four regiments. These regiments, 
the last of which was raised in 1862, were for- 
merly recruited exclusivelj' from liberated Afri- 
cans, thaj is, from negroes captured on the 
slave-traders voyaging to Sierra Leone. These 
slaves generally belonged to different tribes, who 
supplied the Creole negroes. When the slave 
trade was prohibited there were no more liber- 
ated Africans to be had, and the regiments are 
now recruited among the population of the 
islands themselves, and they are composed of 
negroes and Creoles in the proportion of sixty 
per hundred soldiers of the former and forty 
per hundred of the latter. There is one Euro- 
pean sergeant to each company. 

It is equally clear that in our own country in 
the revolutionary war and in the war of 1812, 
colored soldiers were employed on both sides. 
We are of course all familiar with the ordinai-y 
incidents of the revolutionary war; and we 
know that Lord Dunmore issued his pi-oclama- 
tion in 177G inviting the slaves to leave their 
masters, and he organized tbem into regiments. 
He formed two regiments near the site of For- 
tress Monroe. It is a remarkable fact that our 
revolutionary fathers feared the arming of the 



10 



negroes more than anything else ; and what 
tended to defeat the general arming of them was 
th'^e fact that a large portion of the loyalists in 
the Southern States owned slaves. In the works 
of John Adams he gives the reason why the ne- 
groes were not more generally employed by the 
British. He says : 

' " AU the king's friends anJ tools of Government have 
large plantation.^ and property in negroes, so that the slaves 
of the Tories wuuhi be lost as well as those of the Whigs." 

When Lord Dunmore's proclamation was is- 
sued, it was answered on our side bj' a mani- 
festo, from which I will read a short extract to 
show how far the men who now justify and sus- 
tain slavery have departed from the teachings 
of their fathers. It is addressed to the negro 
slaves in Virginia, and uses this language : 

" Lot them farther consider what must be their fate 
should the Englisli prove conqueror.?. If we can judge of 
the futnrc from the pnst, it will not be much mended. 
Long have the Americans, moved by compassion and actu- 
ated by sound policy, endeavored to stop tlie progress of 
slavery. Our as.seniljlies have repeatedly passed acts l.iy- 
ing heavy duties upon imported negroes, by whicli they 
meant altogether to prevent tlie horrid traffic. But their 
humane intentions have been as often frustrated by the 
cruelty and C'>vetciusnej8 of a set of English merchants, who 
prevailed upon tlie king to repeal our kind and merciful 
acts. Utile, indeed, to tlie credit of his humanity. Can it, 
then, be supposed that negroes will be better used by the 
English, who have always encouraged and upheld this sla- 
very, than by tlieir present masters, who pity their condi- 
tion ; who wish in general to make it as easy and comforta- 
ble as possible ; arid who would, were it in their power or luere 
they permiUed, not only prevent any more negroes from losing 
tlieir freedom, but restore it to stKh as have unhappily lost it." 

Mr. President, remember this was a manifesto 
issued in Virginia to the slaves to show them 
why they ought not to join the English ; and in 
that very manifesto they were told that the 
English had always been their enemies ; that 
the English had insisted upon the continuance 
of the slave trade ; that the English could not 
better their condition ; but that they themselves 
had always i^itied their condition ; had always 
opposed the slave trade, and earnestly wished, 
as soon as the measure could be effected, that 
those who were then held as slaves should be 
made free. I have no doubt that such was the 
language held out by nearly all the great men 
of the Revolution. I have before me an extract 
from a letter of Mr. Jefferson on that subject. 
Lord Cornwallis, in the course of the revolu- 
tionary war, (Tccupied the plantation of Mr. Jef- 
ferson and took some thirty of his slaves. Mr. 
Jefferson said that if it had been done for the 
purpose of making them free it would have been 
right ; but that was not the purpose. I have 
no doubt that if during our revolutionary war 
the English had treated the negroes as they 
might have done if they had not been cut off by 
their being tied to the loyalists of South Caro- 
lina, who were large owners of slaves, if the 
negroes tliemselves had not been impressed with 
the /Conviction that it was better for them to 
adhere to the present' masters, who were kind 
and wished them freedom, the negroes would 
have thrown their weight into that contest 
probably at a doubtful period, and might have 
changed the result. It is remarkable that the 
opinions then held by the people of Virginia 



should be so changed that within less than a 
century the very descendants of those men who 
promised their negroes freedom in the Revolu- 
tion should be supporting and sustaining a gov- 
ernment based solely on negro slavery, and in- 
tended to perpetuate and extend it. 

Mr. President, I wish to show the action of 
the different States on this subject, becau.'se my 
argument depends on the fact that at all times, 
in all ages, by our own countrymen as well as 
by others, negroes have been employed in the 
military service. If so, we, in this terrible war, 
entered upon for the purpose of perpetuating 
the institution of slavery, ought surely to be 
able and willing to arm the negro slaves to se- 
cure their own freedom. I find that slaves and 
negroes fought in the New England States dur- 
ing the Revolution. I read an extract from 
Bancroft's History of the United States, volume 
seven, page 421 : 

" Nor should history forget to record that as in the army 
at Cambridge, so also in this gallant baud " — 

That is, at the battle of Bunker Hill — 

" the free negroe.s of the colony had their representatives. 
For the right of free negroes to bear arms in the public 
defense was, at that day. as little disputed in New England 
as their other rights. They took their place, not in a sej)- 
aj-ate corps, but in the ranks with the white man ; and their 
names may be read on the pension rolls of the country, 
side by side with those of our soldiers of the Ilevolution." 

There are many cases that I might cite. Sa- 
lem, who killed Major Pitcairn at the battle of 
Bunker Hill, was a negro. 

In Virginia, slaves were employed as substi- 
tutes for white soldiers, and here is an act 
of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth, 
of Virginia, passed in 1783 : 

"An act directing the emancipation of certain slaves who 
have served as soldiers in this State, and for the emanci- 
pation of the slave Aberdeen. 

'.' I. Whereas it has been represented to the present Gen- 
eral Assembly that, during the course of the war, many 
persons in this State had caused their slaves to enlist m 
certain regiments or corps raised within the same. * * » 

" 2. And whereas it appears just and re isonable that all 
Xjersons enlisted as aforesaid, who have faitVifully served 
agreeable to the terms of their enlistment, and have thereby 
of course contributed towards the establishment of Ameri- 
can liberty and independence, should enjoy the blessings of 
freedom as a reward for their toils and labors." 

Here then it appears that the Legislature of 
Virginia emancipated all the slaves who had 
served in the revolutionary Army. So in South 
Carolina, one Of the most interesting incidents 
of the war was the earnest effort made by 
Colonel Laurens to arm the negro population in 
the southern States upon the promise of eman- 
cipation. I will read one or two extracts to 
show the opinion of several distinguished rev- 
olutionary leaders as to the employment of slaves 
even in South Carolina, and to show that they 
were defeated in that project by the very motive 
that now holds from us the service of thousands 
of able-bodied men. Here is a letter from Henry 
Laurens, dated March 16, 1779, to General 
Washington: 

" Our affairs in the southern department are more favor- 
able than we had considered them a few days ago; never- 
tlieless the country is greatly distressed, and will be more 
80 unless further reinforcements are sent to its relief. Uad 



11 



wa arms for three thousand such black men as I could se- 
lect in Carolina, I should have no doubt of success in driv- 
ing the Bvitisli out of Georgia and subduing East Florida 
before the end of July." 

A committee of Congress, consisting of Mr. 
Burke, Mr. Laurens, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Wil- 
son, and Mr. Dyer, appointed to take into con- 
sideration tlie circumstances of tiie soutliern 
States, and tlje ways and means for their safety 
and defense, on the 29th of March, 1'779, re- 
ported to Congress this resolution : 

" Rfa/ihel, That it bp recommondi'd to the States of South 
Carolina and (ieor^i;!. if they sliall think the same expedi- 
ent, to take nieafiiues immediately for raising three thou- 
sand able-bodied negroes." 

General Lincoln, who was in command at 
Charleston, in a letter to Governor Rutledge, 
dated March 13, HSO, says : 

'•Give me leave to add once more that I think the meas- 
ure of raising a black corps a necessary one; that I have 
great reason to believe if permission is given for it that 
many men would soon be obtained. I have repeatedly urj^cd 
this matter, not only because Congress have recommended 
it, and because it thereby beco.mes my duty to attempt tu 
have it executed, but be"ause my own mind suggests the 
utility and impcrtanco of the measure, as the safety of the 
town makes it necessary." 

I find a letter from Mr. Madison, written No- 
vember 20, 1780, to Joseph Jones: 

"Yours of the I'itU came yesterday. I am glad to find 
the Legislature persist in their resolution to recruit their 
line of the army for the war ; though, without deciding on 
the expediency of the mode under their consideration, 
would it not be as wi-U to liberate and make soldiers at 
once of the blacks tlieniselves as to make them instruments 
for enlisting white soldiers?" 

James Madison makes the very recommenda- 
tion that we now propose — to free them first 
and then enlist t hem afterwards always connect- 
ing the two ideas together. He says further: 

"It would certainly be more consonant with tlia princi- 
ples of liberty, which ought never to be lost sight of in a 
contest for liberty, and, with white officers and a majority 
of white soldiers, no imaginable dHnger could be feared 
from themselves..'' 

1 read from Colonel Laurens again, to show 
how persistently he adhered to this idea of arm- 
ing the negro population of South Carolina, he 
being a native of South (Carolina, in a letter to 
General Washington, dated May 17, 1782: 

"The plan which brought mo to this countrj' was urged 
■with all the zeal which the subject inspired, both in our 
Privy Council and Assembly, but the single voice of reason 
was drowned by the bowlings of a tripple-headed monstei', 
iu which prejudice, avarice, and pusilanimity were united." 

This is the indignant language used by 
Colonel Laurens. 

Here is the reply of General Washington to 
Colonel Laurens : 

" I must confess that, T am not at all astonished at the 
failure of your plan. That spirit of freedom which, at the 
commencement of this contest, would have gladly sacrificed 
eyerytbing to the attainment of its object, has long since 
subsided, -and every selhsh passion has taken its place." 

General Greene had this same subject brought 
to his attention while in command of the south- 
ern department. In a letter to Washington, 
dated January 24, 1782, he said: 

'• I have recommended to this State to raise some black 
regiments. To fill up the regiments with whites is imprac- 
ticable, and to get reinforcements from the northward pre- 
carious, and at least dillicult, from the prejudice respecting 
the climate. Some are for it ; but the far greater part of 
the people are opposed to it," 



I might go on at some length with details, 
but I will not. It is sufficient to say that 
nearly all the leading men of tlie Uovohition, 
Washington, JetFerson, Hamilton, Madison, 
Laurens, Green, and Lincoln, were in favor of 
using slaves, and at the same time emancipa- 
ting them as the result of the service, and it 
was resisted in the southern States partly from 
a fear that the British would arm them, and 
partly from the fear of losing their own prop- 
erty in slaves. 

Mr. President, I will go further. Slaves and 
negroes, especially free negroes, were used by 
us in the war of 1812. You are all familiar 
with the proclamation of General Jackson is- 
sued at jMobile to the free negroes. When 
white men faltered, when they involved him in 
judicial controversy, when the danger was im- 
minent that the English would bombnrd the 
city of New Orleans, the free negroes, at the 
proclamation of General Jackson, rallied to his 
standard. . What did Old Hickory do ? Did he 
turn his back on them and say, " You are ne- 
groes, and. are beneath me in the social scale?" 
That was not his answer. Old Hickory en- 
rolled them in his ranks ; they were mustered 
into the service, and they bravely aided to 
beat back the waves of the British army. Gen- 
eral Jackson, with a manly heroism that does 
him credit, issued his proclamation giving them 
especial thanks for their services. I am afraid 
that some of those gentleman who are so fas- 
tidious if negroes, whether free or slave, 
should come up and offer their lives in the ser- 
vice of their country, if they were willing to 
assume all the burdens oi war, if they were 
willing to risk wounds and pains and death, 
would answer them with contempt, and would 
spit upon them. That was not the example set 
by the great men of the Revolution or of the 
war of 1812. 

Commodore Perry used negroes on the lakes. 
A considerable portion of the force employed 
by him at the battle of Lake Erie were free 
negroes ; and he regarded them as good soldiers. 
They aided him in repelling the British in their 
very formidable attack on our northern fron- 
tier. I am not ashamed to acknowledge that 
the people of Ohio, in the war of 1812, owed 
their safety from further invasion from the 
British, not only to the bravery of white sol- 
diers, but also to the larger number of negroes 
who enlisted in the service. In our naval ser- 
vice, I am informed that they have been always 
used. I believe that in every vessel of war 
over which our flag now floats, in whatever 
country it may be found, the negro fights side 
by side with the white man ; and our tars do 
not consider themselves degraded because a 
man of a dift'erent race and a diifcrent color 
can show bravery and courage as well as them- 
selves. 

The State of New York, in the war of 1812, 
organized negro regiments. I find among the 
statutes of New York, "An act to authorize the 
raising of two regiments of color," passed 
October 24, 1814. 



12 



But.not only did we use negro soldiers in that 
war, but the British employed them against us. 
They organized a negro force within one hun- 
dred miles of Washington, and if they had 
made extensive inroads into our country, no 
doubt they would have employed more. 

I have thus, Mr. President, perhaps at the 
risk of being wearisome, shown that in ancient 
and in modern times, by all civilized nations, 
by our own country and by our enemies, in all 
of our wars, negro soldiers both free and slave 
have been used in the military service, and in 
every case where slaves have been so used, 
their liberty has been secured to them. It 
would be an intolerable injustice, to which no 
people would ever submit, to serve in the mil- 
itary service without securing that greatest of 
boons. My answer, then, to the main question 
whether the employment of negroes, free or 
slave, is justified by the laws of war is, that by 
the practice of all nations it is justified. 

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF OUR POWER. 

I come then to another question that it is 
necessary for me briefly to refer to, and that is 
whether there is anything in the Constitution 
forbidding the employment of free negroes or 
slaves in our army ? On that point there can 
be no doubt. The only restraint upon the law 
of war contained in the Constitution is in arti- 
cle three of th-e Amendments, which provides 
that "no soldiers shall in time of peace be 
quartered in any house without the consent of 
the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner 
prescribed by law." With this exception, all 
the practices of civilized nations may be used 
in this war. There is nothing in the Constitu- 
tion of the United States prescribing the mode 
and manner of dealing with an enemy; nothing 
which affects the power of the President or of 
Congress over the army or navy. 

By the Constitution, Congress is invested 
with all legislative power, and some of the 
powers usually conferred upon the Executive. 
Congress inai/ declare tvar. No such power is 
given to the President. 

There is no reference in the Constitution to 
the power of the President in time of war, ex- 
cept that he is commander-in-chief of the armj' 
and navy; but Congress is empowered to "raise 
armies." Congress may "make rules and regu- 
lations for their government." Congress alone 
has all those powers which are called war pow- 
ers in other countries. In England, in France, 
in all monarchies, the executive authority em- 
braces all the war power; but under our Con- 
stitution the President has no war power ex- 
cept simply to command the army and navy 
according to the laws. Congress must pass 
rules and regulations ; Congress must raise ar- 
mies. By the Constitution the President hag 
no power to enlist a single soldier, black or 
white, bond or free, except as is authorized by 
law, or, as is said by the Supreme Court, in the 
decision to which 1 have already referred, in a 
case of public exigency, he may anticip.ate at 
Lis peril the action of Congress, and if his ac- 
tion is subsequently ratified and approved by 



Congress, it then becomes operative from the 
beginning. But as an original question, the 
President does not possess any war powers. 
They are all vested in Congress. Congress 
alone can raise armies, and make rules and 
articles for their government. 

Now, sir, is there any limitation in the Con- 
stitution as to our power to raise armies? 
Where is the clause limiting our army to free 
men, to white men, to aliens, or to any other 
class of people? The power to raise armies is 
as high as Heaven, as broad as our own coun- 
try, and includes every man within it. We 
may muster in the whole population. We may 
by conscription laws force our whole popula- 
tion into the army. We alone can do it. Con- 
gress, by a law sanctioned by the President, 
can exercise this power, and no other authority 
can. 

Why is it that we are called upon every day 
to fix the price of service, to fix the pay of the 
soldier? Why is it that we are now culled upon 
to raise the pay of the soldier from thirteen dol- 
lars to sixteen dollars a month. Why does not 
the President do it? Simply because Congress 
alone has the power to prescribe the mode of 
raising an army and the pay of an arm3\ If 
the President cannot raise the pay of a private 
soldier from thirteen dollars to sixteen dollars 
a month, where does he find the power to offer 
as pay to the black soldier his liberty — the 
highest reward ? Remember, I do not object 
to the exercise of this power; I am in favor of 
it. I believe the war has been protracted so 
long because we have feared, through prejudice 
and probably on account of old party relations, 
to exercise the great powers that are invested 
in us. I believe that from the beginning, when 
the rebels assumed the position of enemies, we 
should have armed against tliem the whole ne- 
gro population of their country. They need 
not tell me that if we arm the negroes they will 
arm them. They cannot arm their negres un- 
less they promise them their freedom. If they 
promise them their freedom their whole con- 
federacy crumbles into dust. Their confed- 
eracy is built, as Mr. Stephens said, on the 
idea that man should own property in man ; 
that the negro is inferior and must be held 
subordinate to the white race; that he must be 
held as a slave. If they arm the slaves and 
promise them freedom th'eir cause is lost. I 
do not fear any empty threats of that kind. I 
say from the beginning we should have armed 
the slaves ; but before doing so, in my judg- 
ment, we ought to secure them by law, by a 
great guarantee, in which you and I and all 
branches of the Government, co-operating with 
the States and the people, would unite in 
pledging the faith of the United States that 
forever thereafter they should hold their free- 
dom against their old masters. 

It is not that I object to the proclamation of 
the President. I simply want to give it the 
form and sanction of law. I have 'doubts about 
his power to issue this pro^^imation, or that it 
will be of any validity. I fear 'is as the great 



13 



injustice of the times ; that when this war shall 
be over, if Congx-ess allows this matter to rest 
solely on the President's proclamation, and a 
negro comes up and shows that proclamation 
in a court of law as his charter of freedom, 
your court of law will turn him adrift, and tell 
him it was a mere piece of parchment issued 
by a man who had no authoritj- to guaranty it. 
That is what I fear. I wish to guard against 
that contingency by clothing this promise of 
emancipation with all the guarantees and sanc- 
tions of law ; and with my view of the })owers 
of Congress, I have not the slightest doubt that 
we can do it as to all who enter our military 
service. I have not a doubt that we may de- 
clare that we will enlist into the army of the 
United States negroes, whether bond or free, 
in the southern States, and that, as wages or 
as pay for their services, we may decree their 
emancipation. 

Mr. President, we give bounties to soldiers; 
we give land to soldiers. By what authority 
do we do this? I ask 3"0U, if we can induce 
white men to enter the service by a promise of 
one hundred and sixty acres of land and by 
$300 bounty, why can we not induce a negro 
to enter the military service for the highest of 
ail compensations — the emancipation of him- 
self? Why, sir, we take your sou, who owes 
you service for a short period ; we take him 
under age ; we enlist him in the service ; we 
induce him to enter that service by bounties, 
by the j^romise of lands, and by the liberal in- 
ducements held out to our soldiers; and by 
that very act we deprive you of the labor of 
your son. Under what authority of law do we 
do this ? Under the simple authority to raise 
armies. That authority overrides all your 
rights. 

I agree with the sentiment expressed by the 
Senator from . Maryland [Mr. Johnson] the 
other day, if I understood him correctly, that 
Congress in the exigencies of the country may 
arm the negro population of this country and 
muster them into service. The only question 
on which he and I would differ would be as to 
the measure of compensation that ought to be 
held out to these negroes for that service. He 
admits that we have the power to use their 
physical force; and in the face of the histori- 
cal cases I have quoted no man can doubt our 
power to muster these blacks into our service. 
The only question is whether, as a compensa- 
tion for their services, we can promise them 
! emancipation ; and upon this point I see no 
1 limit to our power. Why, sir, you are about to 
I confer the highest honor upon General Grant as 
I a reward for his services. You make our white 
I soldiers generals, and give them the star, the 
j garter of our republican form of government. 
! You give them honor, name, that for which 
men fight and struggle more than anything 
else. You give them all these. I ask you, 
when you can take money, lands, honor, prop- 
1 erty, everything, and give them to your white 
i soldiers, can you not give to the negro who is 
put into your service his own liberty and secure 



it to him forever? It is a narrow view of the 
powers of Congress to say we have no right to 
give a negro freedom as the result of military 
service. 

What is the consequence of this doctrine? 
It is this: in prosecuting war against these 
rebellious States we may exercise against them 
the powers of war. But, sir, in dealing with 
another class of people we are restrained by 
certain constitutional obligations. Ui)on this 
point I shall probably ditt'er with many of my 
political friends ; but I am here to speak my 
earnest convictions. As against the rebels of 
the South, I say, you can seize tlicir slaves ; 
you can put them in your armies ; you can 
make them serve you ; you can emancipate the 
whole race as a measure of war, because by the 
laws of war emancipation and the employment 
of slaves are proper incidents of war. There- 
fore in the seceding States there is no difficulty 
in the way; and even as to tlie loyal men in 
those States the decision of the Supreme Court 
is that as those States have attained the posi- 
tion of belligerents, you may prosecute, even 
against your loyal citizens in those States, the 
laws of war. States as communities have acted, 
and the Supreme Court have decided in the very 
case to which I have referred that the laws of 
war obtain against all loyal citizens in the se- 
ceding States. I will read an extract from that 
decision : 

" All persons residing within this territory whose prop- 
erty may bo used to increase the revenues of the hostile 
power are, in this contest, Jiablo to be treat^-d as enemies, 
though not foreigners. Tliey have cast olf their allegiance 
and made war ou their Government, and are none the less 
enemies because they are traitors." 

Therefore it is that if a loyal man in the se- 
ceding States loses his property it is not by our 
act, it is by the act of the enemy. By a well- 
recognized principle of international law the 
government of a State is not responsible for 
the acts of the enemy. The destruction of sla- 
very in the seceding States is the act of the 
enemy necessarily growing out of the state of 
war ; and if our own loyal citizens are affected 
by the operations of the laws of war in the se- 
ceding States they have no right to complain 
against the United States. If my house is 
burned over my head by a public enemy I have 
no right to reclaim the value of that house from 
the United States. The Government is never 
responsible for the act of the cnemv. It is 
bound to use all necessary force, so far as it 
can, to protect its citizens ; but if it cannot do 
so, or if. in the course of the war, the private 
property of a citizen is destroyed, that citizen 
has no right to reclaim the property from the 
Government. This is a clear principle of in- 
ternational law. Therefore, as to the loyal 
people in the seceding States, they take the for- 
tune and chances of war. It may be hard on 
them. I confess it is. I pity them from the 
bottom of my heart. I have seen brave and 
true and loyal men from those States who have 
lost all their property, who havo been dragged 
into unwilling servitude in the Southern States ; 
but that is the fortune of war. We cannot pro- 



14 



tect them. If their property is destroyed and 
their slaves emancipated as the result of this 
war, it is not the act of the Government, it is 
the act of the rebels with whom it was their 
misfortune to be associated. 

Now, sir, yon come to another class of citi- 
zens in the adhering States, as they are called, 
in the loyal States. I ask you whether they 
are not entitled to certain constitutional privi- 
leges which you are sworn to give ? You can- 
not use against these loyal men in the adhering 
States the laws of war. As against all the ene- 
mies of the Government, those who do anything 
whatever to contribute to overthrow the Gov- 
ernment, living in the adhering States, you 
have a right to prosecute the laws of war. The 
people of Ohio decided that in a very mild case 
in our own State. They believed that a certain 
gentleman who was very prominent had com- 
mitted such acts as indicated him as a public 
enemy. The military authorities seized him 
and expelled him beyond the limits of the State 
of Ohio. His friends endeavored to excite a 
great deal of compassion for him on that ac- 
count. On what ground was it justified? If 
any true friend of his country had been seized 
in Ohio, had been deprived of his liberty, had 
been expatriated, the whole people of that gal- 
lant State would have risen in arms to defend 
him, although he was the humblest of their 
citizens; but they believed he had taken such 
a course in this war that he was a public ene- 
my ; that he had done all he could to aid the 
public enemy ; that he was regarded by them 
as their friend, and by us as an enemy. There- 
fore the act of the Government in seizing him 
and forcing him beyond our lines was justified 
by an overwhelming vote of the people of Ohio; 
but upon what ground ? On the ground that he 
was a public enemy. Therefore, as to all those 
men who in the adhering States have been false 
to the Government, who have by acts — not by 
mere words, because I would not hold a man 
responsible for his words — done anything to aid 
and contribute to the success of the rebels in 
this war, they may be treated according to the 
laws of war. If they lose their slaves so much 
the better. If they lose their property so much 
the better. No one ought to complain of it. 
They have taken the chances of the success of 
this war ; let them enjoy them. 

COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION. 

But now, sir, you come to another class of 
people ; and I ask my political friends this plain 
question: when there are loyal men in the ad- 
hering States — I do not speak of that class who 
live in southern States — but when there are 
loyal men in the adhering States who have been 
true to your country and true to your flag, I ask 
you whether you do nt>t uT,-fc them the applica- 
tion of a different rule? I say you have the 
right to take the slaves of those loj'al people. 
You have the right to take the slave of my friend 
from Kentucky, [Mr. Davis ;] you have the 
right to take the free negro in his neighbor- 
hood ; you have the right to take his son ; you 
have the right to take him, if it is necessary to 



crush the rebellion; and I believe he would be 
as ready to respond, if his personal services 
were needed to put down the rebellion, as any 
man in the Senate. Although I do not agree 
with many of his opinions, I believe him to be 
patriotic, courageous, and brave. I know he 
has in the hour of danger stepped forward and 
been mustered under our llag and carried a 
musket by the side of the common soldier. This 
Government has the right to his slave if they 
want him. They have the right to a free man. 
They have the right to use them in the military 
service. I ask you, when the slave of a loyal 
man is taken in the adhering States are you not 
bound to give him fair and legitimate compen- 
sation? It is not a sufficient answer for you to 
say to me that you do not recognize property in 
slaves. The answer to that is that by the local 
law of the State which has remained true to the 
Government he is recognized as property, and 
the master is protected in the enjoyment of that 
property within the limits of that Slate. If you 
deprive him of that property you are bound in 
honor and conscience to share with him the 
loss. 

Here is a feature of the bill introduced by the 
Committee on Military Aflnirs that I cannot 
approve. I do not think it will take very much 
money to pay for such slaves. 1 am in favor of 
using the slaves of the people of Missouri, of 
Kentucky, and V/est Virginia, and Maryland, 
wherever they can be mustered into our service ; 
but, sir, I think when you take the slave of a 
loyal master you should pay a fair and reason- 
able compensation for the labor of that slave. 
It is true, as my friend from iNIaryland said the 
other day, that the value of the .slave is very 
small in Maryland. 1 would only pay the mas- 
ter that depreciated value. That depreciated 
value is caused by the rebellion. That depre- 
ciation which has been brought upon his prop- 
erty by the act of the rebels he is not entitled 
by the laws of war to have compensation for. 
My property may be depreciated. The property 
of all loyal citizens may be depreciated. 1 have 
no right to complain of this. I have no right 
to ask compensation for this. Therefore, to the 
extent his property is depreciated by the rebel- 
lion in Maryland, he should not be paid ; but to 
the extent his property is of value in Maryland 
at the time we take it, we ought in justice and 
honor and good conscience to give him a reason- 
able compensation. 

That is my view ; and I believe the people of 
the State of Ohio, who in this war hare cer- 
tainly shown their willingness to meet all the 
sacrifices that have been put upon them; who 
have done their full share in furnishing you 
officers and men to fight your battles, will not 
begrudge the small pittance that may be paid 
under this system of compensated emancipatioH 
to the people of the border States who have 
been true to the flag of our country in the hour 
of its great danger. By these principles in the 
further discussion of this bill I shall be guided. 

I think, therefore, to conclude, we ought, by 
a wise, carefully prepared law, to enroll the 



15 



negroes of this country into^the armed service 
of the United States so far as they can be prop- 
erly used. I believe they will fight well. We 
ought to secure freedom to all who fight for us. 
To all the slaves in all the rebel States I would 
secure freedom to the last man, woman, or 
child. I never would allow the men who have 
rebelled against the best Government God ever 
gave to man to own a slave, or, as I was about 
to say, to own any other property. They are 
outcasts. They have rebelled. Their rebellion 
was causeless. I have no pity for them in all 
the sufferings that may be heaped upon them 
in their own generation. For those men who 
domineered in this Senate, who domineered in 
the other House, who converted our political 
bodies into arenas for the defense of slavery, 
and degraded them by blustering violence, for 
those men who, when fairly beaten in a politi- 
cal contest, took up arms to overthow the Gov- 
ernment, I have not the slightest sympathy or 
respect. They are not only enemies, but they 
are traitors, and I will enforce against them 
not only the laws of war but the municipal 
laws of our own country as to treason. So as 
to all those men living in the northern States, 
slave or free, who in this hour of danger have 
been active in their opposition to the Govern- 
ment, who have not given what the Government 
has a right to have, a manly, generous, free 
support, 1 have no sympathy whatever. I do 
not speak of mere political opposition evinced 
in words or with a desire to have somebody 
else selected President rather than Mr. Lincoln; 
but for those men who have actually aided the 
rebels in the adhering States I have no sympa- 
thy. I do not care how many of their slaves 
you put into the service; how much of their 
property you take; how much you confiscate. 
I perhaps will go as far as the furthest. All I 
ask is that when you touch tiie local rights and 
local property of those brave and true men of 
the southern States who have been true to the 
country in this hour of danger, you ought to 
extend to them reasonable consideration for 
the circumstances by which they are sur- 
rounded. 

In this war we are all called upon to make 
sacrifices. These men in the border States 
have suffered worst of all. Missouri has been 
trodden over by armed men in all directions. 
So to some extent has Kentucky ; so to some 
extent has Maryland. Tennessee has been rid- 
den over with the hoof of war. These people 
have suffered. We cannot help that. We can- 
not spare them all suffering. All the property 
of all the people of the United States could not 
redress the wrongs of this war. All we have 
got to do is to fight it through. But I say, for 
one, I never will consent to deprive true and 
loyal men of the adhering States, who have 
been true and have rendered good service, not 
merely lip service, but have rendered good ser- 
vice in the hour of the country's peril — I will 
not take from him even his own local rights 
without giving him a fair and honest compen- 



sation. That, I believe, is the true theory of 

this whole difficulty. 

On the subject of emancipation I am ready 
now to go as far as any one. Like all others, 
I hesitated at first, because I could not sec the 
effect of a general system of emancipation. 
I think the time has now arrived when we must 
meet this question of emancipation boldly and 
fearlessly. There is no other way. Slavery ig 
destroyed, not by your act, sir, or mine, but by 
tlie act of this rebellion. I think, therefore, 
the better way would be to wipe out all that is 
left of the whole trouble, the dead and buried 
and wounded of this system of slavery. It ie 
obnoxious to every manly and generous senti- 
ment. The idea that one man may hold prop- 
erty in the life of another, may sell him like 
cattle, is obnoxious to the common sentiment 
of all. Now, when the power is in our hands, 
when these rebels have broken down the bar- 
riers of the Constitution, when they must be 
treated by the laws of war, when we dictate 
those laws let us meet this question of emanci- 
pation boldly and fearlessly. I am prepared 
to do it, and to vote to-day, to-morrow, or any 
day for a broad and general system of emanci- 
pation based upon the consent of the people of 
the States. Then, sir, I would couple with that 
idea, fair, honest compensation to those loyal 
men, who, in the adhering States, own this 
class of property. The amount paid to them 
would be insignificant compared to the cost of 
this war. 

These sacrifices we must make. I know we 
are called upon to make more. What home- 
stead in this country has not made a sacrifice ? 
AVhat family can you enter in this broad land 
where the drapery of mourning is not hung 
over the hearthstone, where there are not sons 
and brothers and kindred who have fallen in 
this war? Why, sir, if you tell the young 
widow who has lost her husband in this contest 
that she has not suffered as much as the slave- 
holder of Kentucky will suffer by the loss of 
his slaves she would consider you a fool or a 
madman. The mother wlio has seen her noble 
son depart from her side full of the lusty vigor 
of manhood and seen him again return broken 
by disease, ready almost to die — I ask you 
whether her. sufferings and sacrifices are not 
greater than that of any slaveholder in the 
world? 

I tell you, ^Ir. President, this war has in my 
judgment demonstrated the necessity in this 
republican form of Government of doing what 
our forefathers hesitated about doing, to wipe 
out with one bold and manly stroke the whole 
system of slavery in this country. Let us do 
what the framers of the Constitution might 
have done — place upon that instrument the 
broad declaration that all men are entitled to 
FREEDOM. Then, when this is done, for the 
good that it will bring upon us, for the honor 
it will bring upon our race, for the glory it will 
bring on our country, then free in every sense 
of the word, we can afford to deal generously 



16 



with those whose local interests we have sac- 
rificed and whose property wc have taken. 

I see before me, then, a plain path of duty. I 
shall insist that, as the result and consequence 
of this rebellion, the system of slavery sh.all 
disappear from among the institutions of our 
people, and I shall desire to protect and com- 
pensate all I can the loyal slaveholders, to pre- 
serve unimpaired every feature of our Govern- 
ment, to preserve unimpaired the rights of all 
the States. I am willing to temper this system 
of compensation to the action of the States 
themselves. I am willing to move slowly, 
surel}'; and as I see movements are going on in 
Maryland, Missouri, West A^irginia, and I trust 
soon in Kentucky and Tennessee, to wipe out 
this system by the action of those States, I 
shall not interfere with that action. But, sir, 
for one, while I hold a seat on this iloor, I shall 
insist that, as the result of this war, as the great 
punishment of this rebellion, as the great good 
to be derived from it, the system of involuntary 
slavery shall disappear from among us. Al- 
though our generation may have ifiade all the 
sacrilices of the war I believe the future will 



reap all the benefit. Our nation, now thirty 
million, in fifty years will be an untold num- 
ber. Throw open the South, throw open the 
West to emigration from all the countries of the 
world, and a single generation of men, free, 
industrious, and happy, will compensate our 
nation for all the losses and sacrifices of this 
great war. 

But, sir, while you leave upon our national 
record a single spot of that institution which 
has created all our broils and all our contro- 
versies, which has lain at the root of all our 
troubles, we are not safe. The framers of the 
Governm.ent believed that this institution would 
pass gently away. It has not done so. Where 
it once ge^ a foothold it will extend itself. 
Therefore, 1 am for the broadest extirpation, 
the broadest eradication of this institution, so 
far as I can within the power contained in the 
Constitution of the United States. But, sir, in 
doing that I consider this nation rich enough' 
and strong enough to deal generously and lib- 
erally with those who, while they owned this 
property, have yet been true to our country and 
true to our fla?;. 



